Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#81

Post by timeon »

iSnow wrote: post #11

Don't understand Apple here. This was a clear cut case of malicious compliance, what did they expect? That they just get away with it? Of course the EU would see the provocation and will take the opportunity. Yes, they might gain a couple years till this is settled, but they can't use the time to crush a competing app store in between, as there is currently none. I am sure I am dumb, but IMO the smart move would have…

> Don't understand Apple here.

Me neither but I'm probably going to leave Apple ecosystem with next devices. I guess 'nationalism' is a thing even for me.

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#82

Post by lock-the-spock »

kutenai wrote: post #69
RetroTechie wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conflict is with EU regulators. But fines are set as a % of worldwide (not just EU) turnover. It's in the headline...

I did read that, and I think it is OUTRAGEOUS. I'd call it criminal, but these thugs in the EU have no moral character.

I'm sorry that you have such an emotional reaction about a company being threatened with a fine (not even penalised yet) for harmful behaviour which they could immediately choose to stop if they'd want to.

*

Two scenarios: Company A violates consumer rights. Government does nothing, consumers continue to get ripped off.

Company B violates consumer rights. Government threatens fines. Company either fixes the problem (consumer hsrm reduced) or eats the fine (and the money can be used to pay for useful stuff). Either way, they can no longer gain by tipping off consumers and have every reason to stop if the fine may be repeated for a repeat offender.

*

Calculating on global profits is standard practice and is done the same theme the US calculates fines (depending on what the fine is about - you might have different reference points for different harm). This is the only solution as otherwise companies will play the usual whack-a-mole where they create an "affiliate Europe" that is legally separate but pays 100% of its net profits as a licensing fee for the brand name to the parent company, thus making 0€ (more difficult to play this game with gross sales, but there are still plenty of ways to fudge those numbers).

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#83

Post by lock-the-spock »

InsomniacL wrote: post #15

The question is if Apple think maintaining their monopoly is worth more than 'up-to' 10%. I guess 10% would be reserved for absolute refusal of compliance and malicious compliance might attract a smaller fine?

EU legislation generally sets a maximum, but then you also have to prove proportionality to determine the actual amount (damage done + fine). Any such amount will certainly get challenged in the courts, so the Commission will get its ducks in a row before actually settling on a number.

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#84

Post by voisin »

iSnow wrote: post #11

Don't understand Apple here. This was a clear cut case of malicious compliance, what did they expect? That they just get away with it? Of course the EU would see the provocation and will take the opportunity. Yes, they might gain a couple years till this is settled, but they can't use the time to crush a competing app store in between, as there is currently none. I am sure I am dumb, but IMO the smart move would have…

> a couple of years down the road point out that alternative app stores never caught on

This is the conclusion they hope to force now. Strangling the babies in the cribs rather than trying to rein in a bunch of unruly teenagers that have resources to fight.

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#85

Post by Alifatisk »

kutenai wrote: post #75
Alifatisk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not against the statistics, it's well known that the Android ecosystem has more malware than iOS. I was more faschinated by you using LLM as source. I hope I didn't sound condescending, I was asking out of curiosity. The way you attributed it wasn't properly done though, it's like me saying "According to Google, Android has X times more malware...".

Is there a "proper way" to attribute information on the internet? And, in a comment forum? I clearly stated the source as perplextity.ai. In fact, perplexity includes actual sources (via links). I couuld have posted the 8 sources that perplexity.ai cited.. I did not want to take the time. Perplexity does have a sharelink, so, if you are really curious, here is the search and results https://www.perplexity.ai/search/W…

The link you provided was way better way of attributing, thanks!

I might give perplexity a try, looks really useful!

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#86

Post by jacobsimon »

lxgr wrote: post #64
jacobsimon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might sound like a dumb question - but why do lawmakers write such roundabout legislation in the first place? They could have passed a law that says “In the EU, app stores including Apple’s App Store on iOS will not be allowed to charge a fee greater than x% on developers.” And the whole thing would be solved. We can argue about what X should be, but then we wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops.

Because that's not nearly their own objection against Apple and other platform companies targeted by the DMA. For example, Meta is targeted by the same law on WhatsApp messaging interoperability; Apple on their exclusive use of the contactless interface for card payments etc. It's a much more generic and wide-reaching regulatory tool than just an "anti-app-store law".

That’s kinda my point though, by having such generic and wide ranging laws, it opens up room for loopholes and confusion. They should just say specifically what the desired impact of the law is.

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#87

Post by jacobsimon »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #77
jacobsimon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might sound like a dumb question - but why do lawmakers write such roundabout legislation in the first place? They could have passed a law that says “In the EU, app stores including Apple’s App Store on iOS will not be allowed to charge a fee greater than x% on developers.” And the whole thing would be solved. We can argue about what X should be, but then we wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops.

Because they’re trying to solve a class of problems and targeting individual companies with draconian requirements isn’t procedural and on the surface is punitive with no regulatory or legal reason. The regulation creates the context to specify something like this. Writing ad hoc rules for named entities without a law or regulation behind it isn’t how our system of governance works. You first have to have a framework…

Yeah I see what you mean, I just think these regulatory frameworks are themselves somewhat draconian, indirect, and lead to obnoxious and bad user experiences despite their good intentions, like cookie consent popups.

Obviously my opinion doesn’t matter, but wouldn’t it be easier if the EU simply said, “We have the power to regulate commerce in the EU, including software marketplaces. We have decided X.” That would be pretty similar to how many governments set maximum credit card interest rates (as someone mentioned below) as well as other transaction fees in industries that are vulnerable to cartel-like behavior like real estate.

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#88

Post by jacobsimon »

_ph_ wrote: post #66
jacobsimon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might sound like a dumb question - but why do lawmakers write such roundabout legislation in the first place? They could have passed a law that says “In the EU, app stores including Apple’s App Store on iOS will not be allowed to charge a fee greater than x% on developers.” And the whole thing would be solved. We can argue about what X should be, but then we wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops.

Because the problem is more complex. It is not only about the fees - obviously some large companies have that in their focus - but about general user freedom. Like being able to use a web browser of your choice. Or, in general, not have Apple reject some software from their App Store for reasons which are not tied to clear security violations. It is possible to deliver free apps through the App Store without any down…

I think you’re right, but my take is that the user freedom bit is a regulatory overreach. Couldn’t Apple literally turn off the App Store tomorrow, or replace everything with first party applications? There’s no law saying they have to support all these developers, though the DMA may require this indirectly. It feels like a slippery slope to “you need to be able to run Android on your iPhone hardware” or something like that.

It just seems really far fetched to me if you were to apply this logic to other industries- eg “movie theaters must let you play any movie, not just the movies they want!” Or “movie theaters must allow you to bring your own popcorn or allow competing concessions vendors!”

What I think is within regulatory oversight is the fees people charge within certain jurisdictions, because governments should regulate commerce. Similar to how they regulate bank fees, real estate transactions, VAT, etc. They could set a maximum, prevent charging fees for free software, or all sorts of other things that would help developers and consumers without forcing Apple to support weird 3rd party app distributors.

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#89

Post by jacobsimon »

jacobsimon wrote: post #87
fnordpiglet wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they’re trying to solve a class of problems and targeting individual companies with draconian requirements isn’t procedural and on the surface is punitive with no regulatory or legal reason. The regulation creates the context to specify something like this. Writing ad hoc rules for named entities without a law or regulation behind it isn’t how our system of governance works. You first have to have a framework…

Yeah I see what you mean, I just think these regulatory frameworks are themselves somewhat draconian, indirect, and lead to obnoxious and bad user experiences despite their good intentions, like cookie consent popups. Obviously my opinion doesn’t matter, but wouldn’t it be easier if the EU simply said, “We have the power to regulate commerce in the EU, including software marketplaces. We have decided X.” That would b…

In fact, I’m almost convinced that this regulatory framework was suggested by Apple themselves, because it doesn’t really accomplish anything. No one wanted to use third party app stores, they just want Apple to stop charging them so much. It’s fundamentally a payment processing issue, and they’ve spun it into a user freedom issue.

Re: EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

#90

Post by rasz »

belter wrote: post #78
iSnow wrote: post #11

Don't understand Apple here. This was a clear cut case of malicious compliance, what did they expect? That they just get away with it? Of course the EU would see the provocation and will take the opportunity. Yes, they might gain a couple years till this is settled, but they can't use the time to crush a competing app store in between, as there is currently none. I am sure I am dumb, but IMO the smart move would have…

They will go through the EU appeals court process for 8 to 10 years, while making billions. To finally agree to some fine with minor inflation corrections. From a financial management aspect makes total sense.

Intel still hasnt paid its $1 Billion 2009 EU fine for destroying AMD in early 2000.

Thats 15 years https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/intel-win...

Post reply on HN